Sign Up to Receive Posts

Leave This Blank:Leave This Blank Too:Do Not Change This:

Your email:

Recent Comments

MYActually, just realized you're the author of Man and Impact in the Americas. I found out about your book while working on the bibliography, but couldnt find anywhere to read it. I can't include it...

E.P. Grondineuhh Steve -
Why do you think that Greenland has always been where it is now?
Do you think that Greenland was always covered in ice?
I suppose you can look forward to leaving sunny Mexico,...

manifesto2000I've just finished reading Wally's 2013 article: "Does air capture constitute a viable backstop against a bad CO2 trip?" and I'd like to ask him if he has thought more about CO2 as a necessary...

SteveGinGTOGeorge, are you open for adding articles to this list? Or would a separate list be under consideration?
If so, I ran across the WattsUpWithThat post of March 12, 2013, entitled, "New evidence...

In a recent interview with NBC News anti-YDB jihadi Nick Pinter claimed that “the pro-impact literature is, at this point, fringe science being promoted by a single journal.”

This is nonsense — and easily disproven. The critics of the YDB hypothesis have published 10 times in PNAS (see #1 below), whereas the YDB proponents have published only 8 times (see #2 below). Where’s the bias by PNAS, one of the world’s most prestigious journals? There is none.

Also, let’s look at Pinter’s claim that the YDB impact hypothesis is only being argued in a single journal. Besides the 8 papers in PNAS, proponents have published 15 papers in 13 other journals (listed below and in #3). Pinter’s claim is obviously false.

Mahaney WC, et al. (2013) Weathering Rinds as Mirror Images of Palaeosols: Examples from the Western Alps with correlation to Antarctica and Mars. Journal of the Geological Society 2013, v.170; p833-847.